DRUG TESTING

Drug testing is the process wherein companies utilize the resources of
scientific laboratories to determine whether any of their employees use
illegal drugs. Drug testing, which most commonly requires workers to
submit urine samples for analysis, is utilized in businesses and
industries throughout the United States, although the practice continues
to generate controversy. Proponents argue that it has been an effective
deterrent, and that employers have the right to know if their employees
are engaging in behavior that can damage the company. Opponents contend,
however, that the practice violates fundamental individual rights and can
have a corrosive effect on workplace morale.

Drug testing became a popular element of corporate safety and productivity
policies during the 1970s
and 1980s, as awareness heightened of the serious impact that substance
abuse can have on business efficiency and profitability. During this
period, companies of all shapes and sizes began to turn to drug testing as
a method of curbing substance abuse among the members of their workforce.
Large corporations were by and large the leaders in this trend, but many
small-and mid-sized companies implemented drug testing policies as well.
By 1996, an American Management Association survey indicated that more
than 80 percent of responding employers required workers to submit to drug
tests on at least a "random testing" basis. That percentage
dropped by more than 10 percent by 1999, and observers believe that the
number is actually lower since small companies, which were not part of the
survey, are less likely to use drug testing. But many analysts believe
that this downward trend was primarily a reflection of the nation's
tight labor market for skilled employees. They contend that use of drug
testing policies will rise again when unemployment rates rise and
businesses can afford to be more selective and deliberate in their hiring
processes.

THE DEBATE OVER TESTING

Supporters of workplace drug testing note that over the past several
years, as drug testing has become more prevalent in American businesses,
cases of workplace substance abuse have undergone a significant drop.
Proponents of the practice argue that there is a clear correlation between
these two trends. Business owners who use drug testing also point to
cost-benefit analysis as a factor in their thinking; they note that the
expense (typically $15 per test, with confirmatory tests costing
approximately $60) of a testing policy, while potentially expensive over
the long term, can be absorbed much more easily than the litigation costs
that might stem from a single incident featuring a drug-impaired employee.

Moreover, some researchers and business owners claim that the introduction
of drug testing in the work environment has actually
improved
the morale of the larger workforce, since the majority of employees are
more interested in ensuring that their workplace is a safe and productive
one. And of course, proponents of drug testing note that studies clearly
show that companies are far more likely to enjoy financial
health—which also benefits employees—if they are able to
establish and maintain an environment in which substance abuse is not
tolerated.

Nonetheless, detractors claim that the practice is not all that it is
cracked up to be. "Despite the fact that the constitutional right
to privacy does not apply to private-sector employees, many people feel
strongly that drug testing is too 'invasive' and violates an
important right," wrote George R. Gray and Darrel R. Brown in
HR Focus.
In addition, they charged that "testing current employees seems to
promote a statement that employers do not trust their workers to behave
responsibly regarding drug use." Gray and Brown did point out,
however, that businesses can take steps to minimize this impression:
"Careful education efforts about the need for testing can help
prepare workers for a new program. A program directed toward sensitive
positions or departments, tailored to a company's specific
problems, and carefully designed to avoid communicating a feeling of
mistrust among all employees appears to be the company's best
approach in drug testing."

Another common criticism leveled against drug testing is that it does not
spot more commonplace causes of workplace accidents and inefficiency, such
as fatigue or alcohol use. Critics on this point argue that
performance-based testing (also known as impairment testing or fitness for
duty testing) is actually more valuable. Impairment testing measures
whether workers are alert and fit for tackling their duties by tracking
eye movement reactions to various stimuli. Evelyn Beck notes in
Workforce
that supporters of these types of testing argue "because
impairment tests measure involuntary responses, cheating is less a concern
than it is with urine tests, which unsupervised employees have been known
to dilute or substitute."

Critics also argue that the findings of many drug-testing laboratories,
which operate according to varying levels of regulation around the
country, are simply not reliable. More detailed testing has proven
effective in significantly reducing the number of errors made by testing
laboratories, but observers note that additional testing is more
expensive, and that this added cost could prove prohibitive to smaller
companies in particular. Finally, even advocates of drug testing admit
that companies who maintain worksites in more than one state face
potential employment practice liability exposures, because privacy laws
vary from state to state. As a result, employers in this situation often
shape their practices differently from site to site, and in the process
open themselves up to charges that they are not maintaining uniform
employment practices.

THE FUTURE OF DRUG TESTING

Drug testing will continue to be employed on a widespread basis for the
foreseeable future, as concerns over safety, productivity, and liability
continue to trump privacy concerns in the minds of many business owners,
executives, and managers. Moreover, many analysts predict that the
practice will become even more pervasive in the next decade or so. By
2003, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is expected to
implement new mandatory guidelines changing many aspects of regulated
workplace drug testing. These changes will initially
impact only the 20 percent of workplaces that mandate regulated testing,
but observers predict that unregulated industries will quickly follow suit
in most meaningful areas. The most important new provisions contained in
these revised HHS guidelines will govern collection points and expanded
specimen sample possibilities. In the former area, laboratories will be
able to test at the point of collection with hand-held kits and automated
equipment. In the latter realm, laboratories will be able to test using
specimens other than urine. "Proposed additional specimens include
oral fluids, sweat, and hair," wrote Kathy Hitchens in
Medical Laboratory Observer.
All of these specimens can be collected immediately and under direct
observation, eliminating the possibility of employee contamination or
substitution of the specimen.

FURTHER READING:

Beck, Evelyn. "Is the Time Right for Impairment Testing?"
Workforce.
February 2001.

Cranford, Michael. "Drug Testing and the Right to Privacy: Arguing
the Ethics of Workplace Drug Testing."
Journal of Business Ethics.
December 1998.